As I can't post to, or even access, any of the discussions on the SCA subforum here I will just have to post my own . ..

So is it ethical to destroy aid climbs, by removing alleged 'old, gear' in order to put new sport climbing aid gear in ?

No not really, unless you have actually aided it cleanly, in which case it is a trad route and should be left as such.
In a very few instances it may be acceptable to remove old fixed gear to enable the 'clean climbing' of the route via aid or trad.

If you believe it is acceptable, then 'ipso facto' it should be legitimate to remove sport aids to make clean aid/trad climbs, shouldn't it?? . . .

Whilst we are on the topic of 'ethics' -
Is it ethical for the sole administrator of a subforum to arbitrarily deny people access without notice?
Is it ethical for that admin to refuse to respond to legitimate enquiries regarding access to that sub forum?
Is it ethical that proponents of the SCA ethos often fail to abide by own their stated principles/guidelines?

On 8/03/2013 Macciza wrote:>On 8/03/2013 hotgemini wrote:>>Shouldn't this thread really be in the safercliffs forum? >>No, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'safer cliffs' . . .>It is a general discussion about ethics, and belongs in General Climbing>Discussion!>
The problem with using the word "ethics" to reference the stylistic games climbers play is that that play is elevated - because of the traditional moral connotations of the word "ethics" - to a higher plane than is warranted.
Mate, it's only rock climbing.

In what way is removing fixed 'aid' gear and replacing it with other fixed gear destroying an aid climb? Personally I think we should minimise the amount of fixed gear (of any variety) to some arbitrary level probably defined by the first ascentionist/developer on the first ascent, but that fixed gear is fixed gear.

Given my negligible aiding experience (a couple of easy roped solos), I don't understand how changing one piece of fixed gear for another (in the same location) would make it unaidable?

I suspect the reason people use the word 'ethics' is because there are some occasions where the choice to add or remove bolts from a climb can influence the likelihood of injury or death - but does *NOT* make such a person responsible. It's not an inconsequential concern - in the (recent) case where someone accessed publicly available information on a climb but found the climb differently equipped to what was expected, that person could be understandably aggrieved.

**BUT** the decision to attempt a climb is entirely your own, you have every option to check out the line you are climbing in enough detail to be safe (or not climb it) and all public information is known to be potentially flawed.

So at the end of the day, the vast majority of these discussions are about style, and how climbing trad is better than sport is better than bouldering is better than climbing stairs - even if you're an arthritic 87 year old with no interest in style.

That said, when bouldering you never have to worry about whether some twit removed a bolt from (or added one to) something you want to climb ;)

This makes no sense Macca! replacing a 20 year old bolt, that was bomber when placed but is now a time bomb makes sense. There is NO skill in taking the aider off your harness and clipping it to that fixed piece. So i think it is NOT bad form to make it close to the FA person standing on a good piece.

On 8/03/2013 egosan wrote:>On 8/03/2013 Sabu wrote:>>Bloody hell, Macca give it a rest. You're talking as if the entire of>chockstone>>is more corrupt than a Mexican crime gang.... >>>>I am quite enjoying his persistence. I think Neil is holding out till>Macca shows up at his house.

@hotgemini - Thanks for sending me the other thread . . .
@rbcv9 - Bouldering you can worry about whether some twit has decided to alter holds to make the problem 'safer' or sometimes harder . . .
@sabu - Not sure how you think I am implying that, when my comments are specifically about Niel and the NAC, sorry SCA . .
@sliam - The majority of 20 year old bolts are perfectly fine, much like the bolts in a twenty year old car, in fact many 40yo bolts are still fine. Also when saying 'fixed gear' there is more than just bolts and peckers (as you are aware). The gear could be a fixed piton, which if removed would reveal a placement for modern gear. And the best approach should be to 'clean aid' the climb, free it on existing gear or remove that gear to provide a clean placement etc . . .
@ego - Thanks but I think Niel is just ignoring the situation and hoping it will go away, and I am more like to roll up to one of his routes then his house, though I don't expect him to be there . . .
@e.w - Well I don't think I have used language like that but if you think that is an appropriate description of him then who I am I to tell you otherwise . . .
@cm - Hmm not sure - though I am not an NRL fan . . .

Macciza,
In terms of ethics, you can justify just about anything you wish. In terms of Natural Law, perhaps we shouldn't even be climbing. In terms of Hedonism we should be maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, again contrary to much climbing. Utilitarianism maximizes overall "happiness", so sport climbers probably rule, or perhaps NPWS rules and all climbing should be banned. Machiavellianism seems prevalent.

On 8/03/2013 Macciza wrote:>So is it ethical to destroy aid climbs, by removing alleged 'old, gear'>in order to put new sport climbing aid gear in ?

I dunno if this has anything to do with "ethics" as a philosophy, but perhaps "ethic" as a mentality, like the Euros refere to "Moral Climbing" which would be closer to "Bold" in English..

In my opinion, the 1m interval Aid ladders are the ugliest destruction by climbers of beautiful cliffs I've come across, closely followed by massive amounts of chalk (of course to the untrained eye it could be mistaken for birdshit.. not so for tick marks though..)